Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 23STCV31055, Date: 2024-05-31 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23STCV31055 Hearing Date: May 31, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Prior proceedings
On December 20, 2023, Plaintiffs Joshua Nassir, individually and as successor in interest to Decedent Soheila Hobebsion, and Omid Nassir, individually and as successor in interest to Decedent Soheila Hobebsion, filed this action against Defendants Julius Terrell (“Terrell”), Mike Levy (“Levy”), and Does 1-20 for wrongful death and negligence.
On January 25, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint.
On March 1, 2024, Terrell filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Levy and Roes 1-20 for indemnity, apportionment of fault, comparative fault, and declaratory relief. On April 8, 2024, Levy filed an answer to Terrell’s cross-complaint.
On March 11, 2024, Levy filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants Terrell and Zoes 1-20 for comparative indemnity. On March 25, 2024, Terrell filed an answer to Levy’s cross-complaint.
On March 25, 2024, Intervenor Technology Insurance Company (“Intervenor”) filed a complaint in intervention. On April 10, 2024, Terrell filed an answer.
Trial is currently set for June 18, 2025.
B. This motion
On
March 4, 2024, Terrell filed a motion to stay discovery, to be heard on April
19, 2024. On April 8, 2024, Plaintiffs
filed an opposition and evidentiary objections.
On April 15, 2024, Terrell filed a reply. The Court continued the hearing to May 31,
2024.
PARTIES’ REQUESTS
Terrell asks the Court to stay discovery directed at him.
Plaintiffs
ask the Court to deny the motion.
PLAINTIFFS’ EVIDENTIARY OBJECTIONS
LEGAL STANDARDS
“ ‘The Constitution does not ordinarily require a stay of civil proceedings pending the outcome of criminal proceedings. [Citations.] “In the absence of substantial prejudice to the rights of the parties involved, [simultaneous] parallel [civil and criminal] proceedings are unobjectionable under our jurisprudence.” [Citation.] “Nevertheless, a court may decide in its discretion to stay civil proceedings ... ‘when the interests of justice seem[ ] to require such action.’ ” [Citation.]’ ” (Alpha Media Resort Investment Cases (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1121, 1131-1132 (Alpha Media), quoting Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision (9th Cir.1995) 45 F.3d 322, 324 (Keating).)
“[T]he decision whether to stay civil
proceedings pending the outcome of a parallel criminal case should be made in
light of the particular circumstances and interests at hand . . . .” (Alpha Media, supra, 39
Cal.App.5th at p. 1132.)
“ ‘[T]he decisionmaker should
consider “the extent to which the defendant’s fifth amendment rights are
implicated.” [Citation.] In addition, the decisionmaker should generally
consider the following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in
proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it,
and the potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any
particular aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the
convenience of the court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use
of judicial resources; (4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil
litigation; and (5) the interest of the public in the pending civil and
criminal litigation.’ ” (Ibid., quoting Keating, supra, 45
F.3d at pp. 324-325.)
DISCUSSION
A.
The extent
to which Terrell’s Fifth Amendment rights are implicated
Terrell contends that he is facing potential criminal
charges based on the same facts pleaded in Plaintiffs’ complaint. These facts involve Terrell’s alleged role in
causing the death of Plaintiffs’ decedent Soleila Hobebsion on September 28,
2023. Terrell asks the Court to protect
his Fifth Amendment rights by staying
discovery directed at him in the civil case until the limitations period for
bringing criminal charges expire.
The possibility of criminal charges is real, Terrell argues,
because (1) the Sheriff’s Department took Terrell into custody after the
September 28, 2023 incident, (2) Terrell is currently out of custody on bail,
(3) the statutes of limitations for vehicular manslaughter and reckless driving
are three years and second degree murder has no statute of limitations, and (4)
Terrell has a reasonable expectation that the District Attorney’s Office will
prosecute him.
In response, Plaintiffs argue that no criminal charges
have been filed against Terrell and his brief detention took place six months (now
eight months) ago.
In Fuller v. Superior Court (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th
299 (Fuller), the Court of Appeal acknowledged that security guards accused
of beating the petitioners “function under the threat of criminal prosecution.” (Fuller, supra, 87 Cal.App.4th
at p. 308.) However, since depositions
had not taken place, the trial court had not had “an opportunity to ascertain
whether petitioners seek information in discovery which might tend to
incriminate the security guards.” (Ibid.) The security guards could not “invoke a
blanket privilege against self-incrimination with respect to the whole
deposition.” (Ibid.) Instead, the trial court needed “the
opportunity to determine whether particular questions posed in the depositions
would elicit answers that ‘support a conviction’ or that ‘furnish a link in the
chain of evidence needed to prosecute the witness’ [citation], and which may
thus be subject to constitutional protection.”
(Ibid., quoting Blackburn
v. Superior Court (1993) 21
Cal.App.4th 414, 428, 431.)
Here too, Terrell has not identified specific discovery
requests that, in his view, could elicit answers that support a conviction or
furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute him. He has simply attached copies of Plaintiffs’
discovery. Therefore, the Court cannot
determine the extent to which Terrell’s Fifth Amendment rights may be implicated by
Plaintiffs’ discovery requests.
Accordingly, the Court considers this factor to be
neutral.
B.
Plaintiffs’
interests
Terrell argues that a stay of discovery would not harm
Plaintiffs’ interest in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation because discovery
could proceed “as to the other parties.”
According to Terrell, Plaintiffs can conduct discovery directed toward
him when “the discovery stay is lifted.”
Plaintiffs argue that Terrell is asking, in essence,
for an indefinite stay of discovery based on a potential second
degree murder charge for which no statute of limitations exists. Plaintiffs also contend that a stay of discovery
would harm their strong interest in expeditious resolution of the case.
The Court concludes that Plaintiffs’ interest in proceeding expeditiously with discovery
and the potential prejudice to Plaintiffs resulting from a delay weigh in favor of denying
Terrell’s motion. (See Alpha Media, supra, 39
Cal.App.5th at p. 1132 [“[t]he trial court’s concerns about delaying these
proceedings for at least one more year were well founded”]; Avant! Corp. v. Superior Court (2000) 79 Cal.App.4th
876, 887 (Avant!) [“On the first additional factor, there is hardly a
question of the interest of Nequist in proceeding expeditiously with this
litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the potential prejudice to
Nequist of a delay. To require Nequist to wait for the result of the related
criminal action ‘would increase the danger of prejudice resulting from the loss
of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or
the possible death of a party’”].)
This consideration weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor.
C.
The burden
on Terrell
Terrell asserts that the prospect of proceeding with
civil discovery while simultaneously facing an ongoing criminal prosecution imposes
a substantial burden on him: “Without a
stay on discovery, [Terrell] would be forced to choose between protecting
himself against criminal penalties, including possible imprisonment, and
defending himself fully against a civil judgment. . . . [T]his choice between
remaining silent and risking civil losses imposes a severe penalty that should
be avoided in order to preserve a fundamental Constitutional right.” (Motion p. 9.)
“[A] defendant has no absolute right not to be forced
to choose between testifying in a civil matter and asserting his Fifth
Amendment privilege. Not only is it permissible to conduct a civil proceeding
at the same time as a related criminal proceeding, even if that necessitates
invocation of the Fifth Amendment privilege, but it is even permissible for the
trier of fact to draw adverse inferences from the invocation of the Fifth
Amendment in a civil proceeding.” (Keating, supra, 45 F.3d at p.
326.)
The Court concludes that Terrell has overstated the
magnitude of the burden that a denial of his motion for a stay of discovery
would impose on him. Although this consideration
supports Terrell’s motion, it does not weigh heavily.
D. The convenience of the Court in the management of the case
“Clearly, denial of the stay motion promotes the convenience of the court in the management of its cases.” (Avant!, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p. 888.) “ ‘[C]onvenience of the courts is best served when motions to stay proceedings are discouraged.’ ” (Ibid., quoting U.S. v. Private Sanitation Industry Ass’n (E.D.N.Y. 1992) 811 F.Supp. 802, 808.) “Indeed, California courts are ‘guided by the strong principle that any elapsed time other than that reasonably required for pleadings and discovery ‘is unacceptable and should be eliminated.’ [Citation.] [To that end, c]ourts must control the pace of litigation, reduce delay, and maintain a current docket so as to enable the just, expeditious, and efficient resolution of cases. [Citations.]’ ” (Alpha Media, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 1132.)
This consideration weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor.
E.
The
interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation
Terrell argues that a stay of discovery will not harm
the interests of non-parties. Terrell
does not show, however, that denial of a stay will adversely impact any
non-party’s interests. (See Avant, supra, 79 Cal.App.4th at p.
888 [“We therefore fail to see how the interests of nonparties can be
implicated by the denial of Avant’s stay motion”].)
This factor is neutral.
F.
The
interest of the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation
Plaintiffs’ civil action seeks recovery for their
mother’s alleged wrongful death. The
public has a significant interest in a system that encourages individuals to
come to court for the settlement of their disputes. (See Avant, supra,
79 Cal.App.4th at p. 889.)
This factor weighs against granting the motion.
G. Weighing the factors
Weighing the factors discussed above, the Court
concludes that Terrell has not shown that the interests of justice require the
Court to stay discovery directed at Terrell.
The Court exercises its discretion to deny the motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court DENIES Defendant Julius
Terrell’s motion to stay discovery directed at him.
Moving party is ordered to give notice
of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file proof
of service of this ruling within five days.